The implementation of the Résiliation Infra-Annuelle (RIA) and its extension to supplementary health insurance contracts has significantly increased competition in individual insurance. That was the goal and we can say, in this sense, that the objective has been achieved.
This has consequently put pressure on insurers who are seeing the lifespan of their portfolios shrink.
Paradoxically, this limited the appetite for these markets since profitability has decreased. Thus, this has tended to increase subscription rates in favor of lower (relative) indexations on portfolios. Loyalty strategies are favored by risk holders over conquest.
Among these retention strategies, some were sought by the legislator:
- Pricing efforts on renewal ;
- Improved management quality, availability, information, reduced processing times, on-line services, services ancillary to insurance, etc. ;
- Loyalty bonus (guarantee bonus depending on the length of the contract).
On the other hand, it has increased the temptation to “cling” to the insured through a guerrilla of legal formalism to refuse terminations.
Ci-dessous une liste non-exhaustive du florilège des « astuces » et arguties juridiques avancées pour refuser des résiliations pour lesquels la volonté de résilier du client ne fait pas de doute :
- Wrong reason : The insurer refuses the cancellation because the reason given is not the right one, even though another legal reason exists. Here are a few examples of refusals for incorrect reasons :
- The classic: Cancellation is requested on the Early termination (after one year). The insurer or its manager expects a “‘Termination on expiry” reason because they Early termination believe that the Early termination (after one year) can only be requested from the day after the expiry date.
- More vicious: An Early termination (after one year) is requested for the day after the expiry date: Refusal because the request was made a month before, so it is made before the one-year expiry date, even though the requested cancellation date is after the expiry date.
- The absence of a cancellation date requested by the insured (whereas the insurer is obliged by the Early termination (after one year), if it applies, to cancel 30 days after the request).
- The worst: refusal to terminate because the request was made ‘too early’. For example, a customer requests an The worst: refusal to terminate because the request was made ‘too early’. For example, a customer requests an after one year on 24 March for 30 April. The insurer claims that the only possible cancellation date requested on 24 March is 23 April (give or take 1 or 2 days) and refuses to cancel.
This is complemented by other unelegant practices such as not sending a refusal letter to prevent the client from requesting their cancellation even though it puts them in a double insurance situation for several months.
As we can see, this trend of trying to prevent the client from leaving by unfair means is initially harmful for the actors who practice it: He had respected the principle of mutualization over time of the insurance by maintaining a minimum duration of one year for the contracts.
Faced with the absence of any “hold-up” from the authorities on these dubious practices, major insurers (companies, mutuals and provident institutions) rushed into the breach in a clumsy and illusory attempt to reduce their rate of termination. This has caused a significant increase in this harmful trend and has of course made it much more visible.
This will undoubtedly not be ignored much longer by the regulatory authorities (notably the DGCCRF and the ACPR) and they can only severely crack down on this kind of practice The major insurers have of course the most to lose in this case since the fines they incur are generally much heavier. Trying to justify these practices in court would be illusory and there will be no possible escape.
As we can see, this trend of trying to prevent the client from leaving by unfair means is initially harmful for the actors who practice it :
- Serious damage to their image with their customers and the public ;
- Risk of severe penalties ;
- No real impact, or even the opposite, on the churn rate;
- Increased number of claims (and therefore higher management costs).
But this also has a disastrous impact on the image of the profession. The legislator has retained a minimum duration of 1 year for contracts to ensure mutualization over time and preserve the technical balance of contracts. Damaging the image of insurers can only encourage a populist response and a change in legislation that would cut back on this one-year period, which is, for all intents and purposes, essential.
